2025 (3) TMI 1492 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - bogus LTCG - not providing opportunity to cross examination of the person whose statements are used against him - HELD THAT - In the present case DR s argument primary related to transaction which is nothing but accommodation entry. However it is crucial to note that the assessee sold the shares during the period from 19/12/2014 to 16/02/2015 in a staggered manner. Although SEBI had withdrawn suspension by the notice dated 16/11/2016 w.e.f. 21/11/2016. Upon careful evaluation we find that the Ld. AO based his allegations against the assessee solely on the report of the Investigating Authority of the Department without conducting any independent inquiry of his own. Consequently in the absence of any specific supporting evidence we find no justification to uphold the allegations. AO failed to consider the assessee s letter dated 13/05/2023 wherein a request was made for the supply of relied-upon documents. The impugned appellate order is unsustainable. Accordingly the additions are quashed and the appeal order is set aside. Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid and legally sustainable.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in not providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statements (Mr. Prakash Jajodia) were used against the assessee.
• Whether the AO was justified in relying on unproven evidence and materials against the assessee.
• Whether the long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 2,04,42,976 claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act was rightly disallowed by the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
• Whether the addition of Rs. 4,08,860 as commission paid to an entry provider under Section 69C was justified without evidence or materials.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening under Section 148

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 148 empowers the AO to reopen an assessment if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The reopening must be based on tangible material and not mere suspicion. The reopening must comply with procedural safeguards, including issuance of notice and opportunity to the assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated reassessment based on information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had traded in shares of a shell company, AMML, and earned LTCG which was claimed as exempt. The AO treated the transaction as bogus and reopened the case. However, the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report and did not conduct any independent inquiry. The reopening was challenged as bad in law.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted extensive documentary evidence including purchase and sale contract notes, demat account statements, bank statements showing payment and receipt through banking channels, broker ledgers, and proof of payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). The AO did not disprove or reject these documents.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the reopening was based on a report that was later contradicted by SEBI's final order which revoked restrictions on AMML. The AO failed to independently verify the information or consider the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the reopening was justified due to the nature of the shares being penny stocks and the involvement of Mr. Jajodia in accommodation entries. The Tribunal distinguished this by emphasizing the absence of direct evidence against the assessee and the procedural lapses.

Conclusion: The reopening under Section 148 was held to be unsustainable due to lack of independent inquiry and failure to consider the assessee's evidence.

Issue 2: Denial of Opportunity for Cross-Examination

Legal Framework: Principles of natural justice require that when adverse statements or evidence are used against an assessee, they should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant to test the veracity of such statements.

Court's Reasoning: The assessee requested cross-examination of Mr. Prakash Jajodia, whose statements formed the basis of the AO's case. The AO passed the final order without allowing cross-examination or furnishing the relied-upon documents.

Findings and Application: The Tribunal found that this denial violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The AO's failure to provide the opportunity to cross-examine weakened the reliability of the evidence used.

Conclusion: The AO's action in not allowing cross-examination was erroneous and prejudicial to the assessee.

Issue 3: Reliance on Unproven Evidence and Materials

Legal Framework and Precedents: The burden lies on the AO to prove that transactions are bogus or accommodation entries. Mere reliance on third-party statements or reports without corroboration or independent verification is insufficient. Relevant precedents include CIT vs Shyam R Pawar and PCIT vs Ziauddin A Siddique, which emphasize the need for the AO to establish deficiencies in the assessee's evidence before making additions under Section 68 or disallowing exemptions.

Court's Reasoning: The AO relied heavily on the Investigation Wing's report and statements of Mr. Jajodia. The assessee submitted comprehensive documentary evidence substantiating the genuineness of transactions. The AO did not identify any deficiencies in these documents nor did he disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

Findings: The Tribunal noted that the AO's reliance on uncorroborated third-party reports without independent inquiry was misplaced. The documents submitted by the assessee were credible and consistent with normal stock market transactions.

Application: The Tribunal applied the principle that in absence of proof to the contrary, the transactions recorded in demat accounts and supported by bank statements and contract notes must be accepted as genuine.

Conclusion: The AO's reliance on unproven evidence was unjustified and the additions based on such evidence were quashed.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Long-Term Capital Gain Exemption under Section 10(38)

Legal Framework: Section 10(38) exempts LTCG arising from the transfer of equity shares where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been paid. The exemption is available only if the sale is genuine and conducted through recognized stock exchanges.

Court's Reasoning: The assessee sold shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange through a SEBI-registered broker and paid STT. The Tribunal observed that the shares were held in demat form and sale proceeds were received through banking channels. The AO treated the LTCG as bogus based on the premise that AMML was a shell company and involved in fraudulent trading.

Key Evidence: The assessee produced contract notes, demat account statements, broker ledger, and bank statements confirming the genuineness of the sale. SEBI's final order revoked suspension of AMML shares, undermining the AO's reliance on earlier interim orders.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38). The mere fact that the company was once categorized as a shell company or that the Investigation Wing suspected accommodation entries was insufficient to deny exemption without concrete proof.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument based on a precedent involving multiple assessees investing in penny stocks was distinguished on facts, as the present case involved documented transactions with no evidence of price rigging or manipulation by the assessee.

Conclusion: The disallowance of exemption under Section 10(38) was unsustainable and the LTCG was rightly exempt.

Issue 5: Addition of Commission as Unexplained Expenditure under Section 69C

Legal Framework: Section 69C permits addition of unexplained expenditure where the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the expenditure.

Court's Reasoning: The AO added Rs. 4,08,860 as commission paid to an alleged entry provider without any supporting evidence or material. The assessee denied such payment or provided no proof of such unexplained expenditure.

Findings and Application: The Tribunal found that the addition was made without any basis or corroborative evidence. The AO failed to establish the nature of the alleged commission or link it to the assessee's transactions.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 69C was unwarranted and was quashed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal crystallized the following principles and conclusions:

"The Assessing Officer based his allegations solely on the report of the Investigating Authority of the Department, without conducting any independent inquiry of his own. Consequently, in the absence of any specific supporting evidence, we find no justification to uphold the allegations."

"The sale transactions of these shares were also conducted through a banking channel, and the LTCG amounting to Rs. 2,04,42,976/- earned and claimed as exempt income under Section 10(38) of the Act. This exemption applies as the sales were conducted on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and the requisite Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was duly paid."

"When details of share transactions are substantiated by DEMAT account statements and contract notes, and the Assessing Officer fails to prove such transactions as bogus, the capital gains cannot be treated as unaccounted income under Section 68 of the Act."

"The Assessing Officer's failure to provide the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant whose statements were used against the assessee violated principles of natural justice and prejudiced the assessee."

"Additions under Section 69C cannot be sustained when there is no evidence or material to prove the nature of the alleged unexplained expenditure."

Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the additions of Rs. 2,04,42,976 and Rs. 4,08,860, and set aside the impugned appellate order.